Trial Verdicts and Results
On April 2, 2025, Orlando Senior Partner Matthew Wendler obtained summary judgment in a case involving the alleged negligence of our client, a construction contractor that employed two individuals alleged to have battered the plaintiff while they were out of town for work. Specifically, the incident occurred in a hotel parking lot on a Sunday night, over 24 hours after the employees had stopped working at the construction site, which was nearby. As to our client, Plaintiff sought to recover for the traumatic brain injury he allegedly sustained during the incident under theories of vicarious liability (respondeat superior) (namely, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress), negligent training, and negligent supervision. Plaintiff’s wife sought to recover for her alleged loss of consortium.
As to the vicarious-liability claims, the Court agreed with Mr. Wendler’s contention that Plaintiff had no evidence of two of the three elements needed to recover, that is, (1) evidence that the conduct was of the kind the employees were hired to perform and (2) evidence that the conduct occurred substantially within the time and space limits authorized or required by the work to be performed. As to the negligent-supervision claim, Plaintiff conceded during the hearing that summary judgment should be entered in our client’s favor. As to the negligent-training claim, the Court agreed with our contention that the duty to train extends only to those tasks as to which an employer would reasonably expect its employees to require instructions; and that, relative to the employees’ construction job, how to conduct oneself in a hotel parking lot while he or she is off duty falls outside the scope of any reasonable expectation.
On July 25, 2025, Orlando Managing Partner Anthony Merendino and Senior Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a premises liability case styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store FL. The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant was liable for Plaintiff’s slip-and-fall inside of Defendant retail store while shopping, as well as for negligent maintenance of the subject store.
Plaintiff alleged that while she was shopping inside of the subject Retail store, she slipped-and-fell in an aisle on what she described as a sand-like substance on the Floor. Con-sequently, Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries primarily to her low back. We were able to successfully argue that based upon the undisputed material facts (obtained mostly from Plaintiff’s deposition), the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as there was no record evidence that the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the floor in the area where Plaintiff allegedly slipped-and-fell. Mr. Merendino also pointed out that Plaintiff’s negligent maintenance claim was abolished pursuant to Florida Statute 68.0755. Plaintiff’s claimed past medical bills were approximately $40,000, which consisted of among other treatment, epidural steroid injections and plasma injections. Plaintiff was also recommended to undergo a low back surgery. Plaintiff rejected a settlement offer in 2024. The summary judgment prevented a trial scheduled to begin in December, 2025.
2 Wrongful Deaths: Jacksonville / Duval County- Double Fatality, Mother and Son, Shooting- Summary Judgment Granted
On October 24, 2025, Jacksonville Partner Todd Springer and Senior Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger were granted summary judgment in two wrongful death matters involving a mother and son shooting in matter styled Proposed Personal Representative of Estate of Deceased v. City Trends, Inc. et al. These cases are tragic but our client, a retail store in a tough neighborhood, was not responsible for these shootings. The decedents exited the store to their vehicle that was about 20 feet from the entrance. Our dedicated “negligent security MSJ” Partner, Daniel Weinger and Jacksonville Managing Partner Todd Springer successfully argued that we owed no duty and that the parking lot did not create a foreseeable zone of risk. Plaintiff never came below $4,500,000. We continue to defend tenants of commercial properties aggressively on these types of cases.
Wrongful Death Shooting of 18-Year Old - Orange County - Summary Judgment Granted
On August 21, 2025, Partners Katherine McKinley and Senior Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger obtained a final summary judgment on a negligent security wrongful death shooting matter styled Estate of Deceased v. Defendant Mobile Home Community. This was a very sad case of an 18-year old who was shot and killed in a botched robbery on a property that had no security or access control in our client’s trailer park, despite a shooting death 11 months earlier. Our position was the decedent had been lured to the premises, where he was shot and killed during an attempted robbery. We moved for summary judgment on numerous grounds. Following extensive briefing and oral argument, the trial court agreed that Plaintiff could not establish that the decedent’s status on the property was that of an invitee. We continue to obtain written legal opinions to build precedent that “targeting” cases should not be reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law. Our dedicated “targeting” team develops defenses on crimes that involve known offenders and known victims.
Landlord Liability – Animal Liability – Property Management – $1M Demand - Past Medicals Exceeded $1.5M - Summary Judgment Granted
Food delivery driver suffered severe fractures to both legs after leaping from a balcony of an apartment building. The driver asserted that he made a food delivery to a tenant and was chased by a “vicious” pitbull dog owned by the tenant. Plaintiff argued that all pitbulls are inherently vicious and aggressive and that the landlord was negligent in allowing the tenant to own such an animal, even though the dog involved (“Stitch”) had no history of aggressive behavior, and was a certified Emotional Support Animal. Plaintiff underwent multiple surgeries on both legs to recover from the fall. Plaintiff sought recovery for past and future medical expenses and pain and suffering. Past medical expenses alone exceeded $1.5 million.
We defended the landlord and property manager, arguing that pitbulls are not inherently dangerous and that, under the ADA, it is reasonable to accommodate Emotional Support Animals with no history of aggressive behavior. Plaintiff’s decision to leap from the 2nd story onto the asphalt parking lot below was also a superseding, intervening cause of his injury. After 2 ½ years of litigation, where Plaintiff consistently refused to come below their pre-suit demand of $1 million, Premises Liability Partner Katherine E. McKinley and Appellate Director Daniel Weinger obtained final summary judgment in favor of the landlord and property manager.Defense Verdict- Eight-Day Trial - Rear End Collision - Plaintiff Requested $7,000,000
On April 2, 2025, after an eight-day trial arising out of a disputed-liability rear-end collision, the jury returned a full defense verdict—deliberating for only 13 minutes before siding with our 24-year-old client. Plaintiff characterized the accident as a simple rear-end accident, but we argued that the plaintiff cut into our client’s lane and suddenly and unexpectedly slammed on their brakes. The jury agreed. The plaintiff rejected the policy tender and asked the jury for $7 million in closing argument. The damages presentation included $1,100,000 in past medical expenses. Plaintiff underwent four surgeries including a cervical fusion, lumbar discectomy, bilateral rotator cuff repair, and right wrist repair. Plaintiff also presented a $340,000 life care plan. Mid-trial, we successfully excluded the plaintiff’s proposed rebuttal expert testimony on causation, further weakening their case. Our proposal for settlement in the amount of the policy limits entitled us to seek fees and costs, making the victory even more significant.
On August 28, 2025, after a four-day trial, the jury returned a defense win in an intersectional collision case involving a national pizza delivery company. Despite the late file transfer just one week before trial, our parachute trial team stepped in and delivered outstanding results. Just prior to trial, we succeeded on a motion to exclude a cervical fusion surgical recommendation.
During trial, plaintiff called three experts—a radiologist we are seeing more frequently, Dr. Darren Buono, along with a neurosurgeon and a primary care physician—to support their damages case. The plaintiff demanded $1.4 million in closing argument, presenting claims of four disc herniations, a cervical epidural steroid injection, and ongoing pain management to leverage the perceived “deep pocket” defendant. Despite having a deceased defendant, no discovery responses, and no deposition testimony to rebut the Plaintiff’s claims, the defense team beat directed verdict on negligence and causation during trial. Shortly after closing arguments, the jury awarded just $78,000, an amount that fell below the defense’s proposal for settlement, resulting in a net zero judgment against the defendant.
Defense Verdict - Admitted Liability - Volusia County- Plaintiff Requested $1,776,258
On October 31, 2025, Orlando Senior Partner Juan Ruiz and Senior Associate Stephanie Davis obtained a complete defense verdict on an admitted liability rear-end collision case. This is parachute trial number 16 for Juan Ruiz this year, our Excess Monitoring and Parachute Trial Co-Chair. No priors, multiple disc herniations in the cervical and lumbar spine, an alleged traumatic brain injury, a L5-S1 discectomy, and overbilling of $166,000 with a $486,000 Life Care Plan. Plaintiff asked for $1,776,258, but the jury said $0 after 44 minutes. Senior Associate Stephanie Davis second-chaired this win and handled our radiology expert. Even with tort reform, the LOP docs continue to overbill these cases. We will continue to aggressively defend against these abuses.
Defense Verdict - Parachute Trial Las Vegas, Nevada on Premise Liability Claim – Combined Ask in Closing $11.2M
This case was a parachute trial in Las Vegas, Nevada on a premises liability claim. We were brought in because of the complex, high medical billing, which was in the millions. A mother and daughter both claimed injuries that included TBI, spinal cord stimulator, and multiple spinal and extremity surgeries and procedures. The claimed specials were over $11M, including life care plans. The combined ask in closing statements was $11.2M. Liability was hotly contested, as well as medical causation. Our Parachute Trial Practice Group works with local or primary defense counsel to develop “Reverse Reptile” trial themes and the best way to try the case.On June 25, 2025, Senior Partner Allison Janowitz obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in the premises liability case styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Mall. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, alleging liability for a slip and fall inside the Mall. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped on a pink liquid on the floor while walking through the Mall's common area. Plaintiff could only testify to one streak mark through the liquid, which she stated was from her sandal. Video of the incident was retained, and the Court found it showed numerous individuals walking through the exact area where Plaintiff fell. Ultimately, Plaintiff complained of pain in her right hip, left knee, and right hand. She was diagnosed with a closed fracture of the distal end of the right radius. Medical specials were estimated at $6,000.00.
Fort Lauderdale Senior Partner Allison Janowitz obtained a Motion for Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff in Plaintiff C v. Retail Store and Defendant Mall. Plaintiff alleged that while she was shopping within Retail Store, she was struck by stock cart being pushed by a Retail Store employee who was pushing a stocking cart. Plaintiff tried to argued that Defendant Mall exercised custody and control over the area where Plaintiff was struck, despite the incident occurring within the Retail Store. The Court disagreed with Plaintiff, and under the lease agreement with Retail Store, granted the Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Defendant Mall.
On the same case, Senior Partner Allison Janowitz obtained a Partial Summary Judgment against Co-Defendant and Cross-Claim Defendant Retail Store under the lease agreement. The lease agreement between the two entities provides that Retail Store is to provide indemnity and defense to the Mall for incidents that occurred within their space. The Court agreed, granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and ruling that the store had an obligation to indemnify and defend the Mall. This resulted in repayment of all fees and costs accrued by the Mall for the entirety of the case.
On July 25, 2025, Orlando Managing Partner, Anthony Merendino, obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a premises liability case in Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store FL. The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant was liable for Plaintiff’s slip-and-fall inside of Defendant retail store while shopping, as well as for negligent maintenance of the subject store.
Plaintiff alleged that while she was shopping inside of the subject Retail store, she slipped-and-fell in an aisle on what she described as a sand-like substance on the floor. Consequently, Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries primarily to her low back. Mr. Merendino was able to successfully argue that based upon the undisputed material facts (obtained mostly from Plaintiff’s deposition), the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as there was no record evidence that the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the floor in the area where Plaintiff allegedly slipped-and-fell. Mr. Merendino also pointed out that Plaintiff’s negligent maintenance claim was abolished pursuant to Florida Statute 768.0755. Plaintiff’s claimed past medical bills were approximately $40,000.00, which consisted of among other treatment, epidural steroid injections and plasma injections. Plaintiff was also recommended to undergo a low back surgery. Plaintiff rejected a settlement offer in 2024. The summary judgment prevented a trial scheduled to begin in December, 2025.
Construction Partner David Harrigan obtained favorable Final Judgment in a CD matter styled Lincolnshire Maximo, LLC v. Marina Walk, LLC. The Plaintiff is the owner of a marina in south St. Petersburg and the submerged lots of a canal that leads from the marina to Boca Ciega Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The Defendant is the owner of a residential apartment building directly east of the marina and separated only by a city street and right of way. The claims by the Plaintiff involved the existence of an underground 24-inch storm drainage pipe, approximately 57 feet in length, that runs due west beneath the Plaintiff’s parking lot originating from Defendant’s property and running beneath the City’s right of way for 37th Street South, and terminating at an outfall incorporated into the seawall for the marina. The pipe drains a portion of the storm water flowing from the Defendant’s property. No recorded easement exists for that portion of the pipe that crosses beneath the Plaintiff’s property.
The Plaintiff brought claims for negligence, trespass, and private nuisance associated with use of and discharges through the drain pipe, which the Court dismissed at the conclusion of trial in response to the Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of those claims. On the remaining claims, the Plaintiff sought declaratory relief to confirm their property rights regarding the presence of the pipe, enjoining the Defendant for further use of the Pipe for drainage, and demanding damages in the form of equitable disgorgement of profits from the Defendant’s rental property.
Recounting the significant history of the drainage pipe since the late 1950s, the Court recognized that stormwater drainage continued through the drainpipe without objection until 2018, when the Defendant began redevelopment/conversion of its property from a hotel to an apartment building. At that time, Plaintiff voiced its objection to the continued use of the drainpipe and sought through various means to obstruct and deny the Defendant’s property any further ability to drain a portion of its stormwater runoff through the pipe.
The Court, in considering the totality of the evidence and testimony at trial, determined that the Defendant established through clear and convincing evidence all elements of a prescriptive easement for the drainpipe, thus denying the Plaintiff all recovery sought on its claims associated with the Defendant’s use of the pipe. As to all counts of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint not previously dismissed pursuant to the Defendant’s Motion for Involuntarily Dismissal, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant.
Favorable Verdict, Plaintiff Demanded $1,000,000 - Plaintiff 90% Comparative Fault
On March 14, 2025, Senior Partner Nora Bailey and Stuart Managing Partner Ben Pahl obtained a favorable verdict in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiff v. Caddy’s Bradenton d/b/a JWC FL, LLC. Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to properly maintain, inspect, repair, and warn of a dangerous condition – specifically, a bench attached to a picnic table surrounding the outdoor bar, adjacent to the river. The Plaintiff claimed that while she was sitting on the bench, the bench separated from the legs of the table and the tabletop came apart simultaneously, causing her to fall backwards, striking the back of her head on an adjacent table.
The Plaintiff alleged a subdural hematoma; multiple bulges and herniations in her cervical and lumbar spine; and an alleged compression fracture at C7. She underwent multiple rounds of spinal injections, physical therapy, and chiropractic treatment, and was recommended for a sacroiliac joint fusion and a C4-C5 disc replacement surgery. Her Life Care Plan, after a defense motion argued by Ms. Bailey, was presented to the jury at a cost of $311,827 - $382,653 (previously, it was valued at $875,588 - $1,300,907). Plaintiff asked for $802,000 in closing; the Defense anchored at the ER bills and 12 weeks of chiropractic care at $36,017.
The CEO of Caddy’s testified that managers would complete daily walkthroughs, with a checklist, every day; weekly walkthroughs with the director of operations, who at the time was him; weekly Zoom meetings to discuss any issues; and quarterly safety inspections by an independent third party specifically to identify any hazards, including furniture hazards, which Caddy’s would promptly correct.
Defense expert testified that the procedures and policies of Caddy’s were more than reasonable for industry expectations.
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks, Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings is a trademark and Lawyers.com is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. AV, BV and CV are registered certification marks and AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
by tdburns, llc. - website designer, ft. lauderdale, fl